Kinda sounds worth it if it would end the WWE.

Are they exclusively present to go against the McMahon family?

If so.... Yes, yes I would.

Look in the general direction of the same gender?

Believe it or not, also gay.

Oh I know the excuses they give (and the racism behind so much of it). I just can't comprehend why, which is why I say I don't want to understand, just have them, you know, not be shitty.

At least locally there is a push for it which I'm advocating for. We just got preschool for free too, so that's a step in the right direction - lunch is next on the docket, I expect some battles there...

Dual nic NVR then? You could even just throw a simple switch with no uplink (but preferably managed so you can tag the traffic) and for extra safety just allow only the LAN traffic you want on the NIC/Port connected to your regular LAN from the NVR.

Nothing wrong with a DIY can though! As long as it works of course

Unfortunately true. And the reason I personally land with prison is that enough innocent people end up there that I can't support the death penalty. I actually just referenced a convicted murderer just a bit ago, whose conviction was overturned in no small part due to bad police work.

The best prevention, IMO, has nothing to do with the justice system, and a lot note to do with better social services. Counseling before something terrible and irreversible happens, better support for single parents, or even social workers/police/etc doing their job in this case, would have improved things drastically - a little girl would still be alive.

I can't think of a better option than that.

My doctors have been incredible, at least those I've had for the past 4 years or so. Including my gastro.

They take the time to talk to me, they remember who I am, and my gastro is even a direct recommendation from my primary doctor (my gastro is his gastro).

I've been going to gastroenterologists for literally decades, the one I got a couple years ago is the first to finally find the issue, and I've been reflux free. I doubt he'd do a transnasal either - its more limited in scope (hah!), you're only getting part of what an endoscopy can do. That's why its not transnasal endoscopy, its transnasal esophagoscopy.

And that's probably why. Why they wouldn't just say that, I don't know. There are lots of places that will do transnasal esophagoscopy throughout the US, so it isn't a procedure that is just "not done here" or anything, its not as popular in general because its just not as thorough of a procedure.

I hope you find a doctor in the future that takes the time to explain things though.

Edit: Forgot to mention, the hospital system by me is a non profit. Only differentiator I am aware of, and its a great hospital system.

If I remember right, Haley was already out of the PA primary.

Yeah, they are doing their best to not actually reply to any points that matter. I'll continue on with the new accounts I've made on other instances, because mine on lemmy.world isn't getting use now. I can't really trust them to do the right thing (or even smart/logical operational things), so I'll put my support elsewhere.

There is definitely no Ill will, just, as mentioned, disappointment and lost trust.

I think it would be great if they actually looked towards things with more practical and informed care. I'm not sure that we will be seeing that any time soon, if at all, but one can hope.

The admins (and all the fediverse really) could more clearly state that everything on this site is basically public.

To an extent - lets not forget that a bunch of identifying information is visible to admins, not to users, not publicly. Which is why a privacy policy (such as the one on lemmy.world) is so important, and why it would seem so frustrating when basic legal practices are functionally ignored. What's the difference between a random troll sending cease and desists out, and a certain corrupt POS Texas AG requesting all the folks who have ever commented that they were trans? Both can be completely and utterly unfounded, and yet still bring you into a lengthy court battle.

because if their risk is anything greater than downloading a videogame without paying, some guy in another country reaching out to a lawyer for an hour is not likely to provide them relief. I don’t like that, but is the reality. The site should improve on making the users aware of that reality.

I have to disagree there, because competency comes into play. Speaking to a lawyer and being aware of how to say "No" properly is important. Knowing how to document bad requests and bad faith actors. Having someone you can reach out to and follow-up with for an unsubstantiated nonsense request from a hate monger is important.

Rolling over immediately and preemptively making decisions on unrelated communities however... that doesn't provide me with warm and fuzzies.

It would also be great that people with expertise in legal affairs, like you seem to be, volunteered to carry on that job, like the admins carry the technical job voluntary. But not them nor you or anybody should be forced to do so. Exclusively the users up in arms almost demanding piracy free-for-all content, are showing unjust entitlement and misunderstanding about how the fediverse works.

To be clear here - I am not a lawyer. I have run forums before (and I can guarantee the issues around piracy and illegal materials that are bound to be posted have not changed), I worked with lawyers, I carried general liability insurance, etc. These aren't specialty things, this is what basic operations looks like.

Exclusively the users up in arms almost demanding piracy free-for-all content, are showing unjust entitlement and misunderstanding about how the fediverse works.

I don't think I've seen any of that personally. I'm one of the people who called out an admin for not actually talking to a lawyer though - and frankly I think they should have done that months and months ago. Even just to have found someone available who could provide services as needed.

To be honest, everything I know about that is what I have read about the number of cases when platforms or other kind of purveyors of piracy are sentenced to or settle paying tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands or even millions. Those are real cases where the people involved obviously felt very confident about their legal safety. Surely, most of the situations are not like that and don’t even get to be in the news because of how insignificant the resolutions are.

I'd say not only are most situations not like that, the ones you are referencing are specifically people who were actively sharing content. There are a couple of decades of history on this stuff.

But, is there a way to be sure about what kind of outcome would lemmy.world would get to be completely confident about doing or not doing one thing or another?

Well this is what a lawyer is for. As well as liability insurance (another often misunderstood thing - every group/business/etc is different, but a general liability policy for a million or two USD costs most folks around $1-$2k per year.) But there is quite a bit of established law, yes. If you link directly to materials that would be infringing, but not host, you can be considered as intentionally encouraging direct infringement - note that this is with a direct link only. This goes back about... 20ish years to MGM and Grokster.

Also established - thumbnails are fair use, indexing or linking to a website (but not to content directly) is an intrinsic use/function of websites. If a direct link is made, the site owners need to remove that link when notified either by report or by a claim from the IP holder. There are even safe harbor provisions specifically around sites like Lemmy (and other link aggregators), which a lawyer can provide the guidelines on how to ensure they apply.

Is that just one time? Is that total to get a safe and definitive resolution? Or is that every time the situation arises?

It depends on what we are talking about. Reviewing a specific claim? One time cost. Getting a good general response to any random bunk claim that comes their way? One-time-ish, it doesn't hurt to check in with the lawyer every once in a while to see if anything needs updating. No lawyer I know is going to charge to read their own letter, but they may say "There are some extra references that can be brought in here from recent case law, I'd estimate 30 minutes of work" which would be an extra cost obviously.

What about companies that exist exclusively to massively send takedown requests?

A great reason to have already spoken with a lawyer and have a prepared response. Also a great reason to speak with folks at the EFF should the need ever arise, they like going after copyright trolls.

If the instance openly accepts the legal liability, the number of times that this happens will decrease, increase or stay the same?

Who said there is legal liability being accepted? What liability legally? Specifically.

My position is that the instance admins are not obligated to be a legal shield for the users to have any kind of content that we want on the platform.

No, but this is the part where I think you're missing something really important. The piracy community (communities) aren't the issue to me. Lets recap what happened here.

There was a claim that came in on something - unrelated to these communities. There was, as far as has been posted, absolutely only a request, with no response other than lemmy.world simply agreeing to what was demanded. This has not had any actual legal review, and may have been a completely valid or invalid request.

They then decided to apply this request (valid or not) as a concept to other areas, and simply disabled access. There were supposedly hours of discussion here, and then the change was made, with absolutely zero discussion. There were never any comments expressing concerns to any of the effected communities or the admins of the instances which manage those communities. There was no posting here until hours after it was brought up on another instance. This is also only a few months after they admitted to doing a terrible job of communicating and promising to do better.

There was an unsubstantiated claim from an unknown entity, and their decision on how to apply that (not just to the claim, but to unrelated communities) was done unilaterally and without any legal input.

Forget piracy. There is a trust problem. Why would you feel comfortable providing them with any information of yours if you live in a country where you may be concerned for your safety - not even now, but in a few years - for having the unmitigated gall to admit you are (gay/trans/bisexual/a believer in a socialist meritocracy/atheist/muslim) on a place where there are no legal precautions actually being taken? Where the word of someone sending a letter matters more than what the law might actually say?

My issue with the decision here has almost nothing to do with piracy or those communities. It has to do with trust. And they lost mine.